ArticlePEC innovation2025
Communication across language barriers in Nordic paediatric oncology care - A cross-sectional multicentre survey with healthcare personnel.
Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interpreter use in Nordic paediatric oncology care - a multicentre cross-sectional study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study investigated how healthcare personnel communicate with families when experiencing language barriers, and the use of interpreters in Nordic paediatric oncology care. Methods: A cross-sectional multicentre survey study with registered nurses (RNs) and medical doctors (MDs) at 20 Nordic paediatric oncology centres. The "Communication over Language Barriers questionnaire" (CoLB-q) was used in the respective Nordic languages. Descriptive analysis and non-parametric tests were used to summarize and compare data. Results: A total of 489 RNs and MDs completed the survey (response rate of 55 %). Although most respondents reported often or sometimes caring for families with limited proficiency in the country's majority languages, only 20 % had received education in how to use an interpreter. When communicating without an interpreter both professions had used relatives and children as language brokers to some extent. Most respondents assessed that the use of interpreters increased families' participation and improved their care relationships with the families. MDs used interpreters more often than RNs, who in turn used children as language brokers more frequently than the MDs did. Conclusion: Although most respondents believed that a professional interpreter increases patients' and families' participation and safety in care, children were used as language brokers by both professions. Few had received education or training on how to use an interpreter despite that most participants often met families with limited proficiency in the country's majority language. Innovation: This study highlights a critical gap and underscores the necessity for healthcare personnel to receive education and training on utilizing professional interpreter resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.